Haptic size perception is influenced by body and object orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in body orientation from standing have been shown to impact our perception of visual size. This has been attributed to the vestibular system's involvement in constructing a representation of the space around our body. In the current study we investigated how body posture influences haptic size perception. Blindfolded participants were tasked with estimating the felt length of a rod and then adjusting it back to its previously felt size (after it had been set to a random length). Participants could feel and adjust the rod in the same posture, standing or supine, or after a change in posture. If the body orientation relative to gravity impacts size perception, we might expect changes in haptic size perception following body tilt. In support of this hypothesis, after changing between standing and supine postures there was a change in the rod's haptically perceived length but only when the orientation of the rod itself also changed with respect to gravity but not when its orientation was constant. This suggests that body posture influences not only visual but also haptic size perception, potentially due to the vestibular system contributing to the encoding of space with respect to gravity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".